I live in America.

I live in a country that was founded on the ideal that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.



My country was born on July 4th, 1776 when a group of men decided that the injustice of being taxed, without the right of being represented was too much to bear from the Crown of England.

These men sent a letter to the Crown, listing the grievances they had. The Declaration of Independence is considered one of the greatest documents ever put to paper.

These men also had the courage, not to make this an anonymous open letter to the Crown, but to sign it.

Each of these men was branded as a traitor by the Crown. Each of them was stripped of their property, and bounties were on them. They lost contact with their families. Do we have any men that live among us today that might do the same?



After winning independence from England, there came the formation of a government, unlike any which had been seen before on the face of the Earth, nor since.

It consisted of three Branches, each holding a check and a balance over the other two.

It took compromise to reach the final result. Not everyone was pleased. But the best suggestions came forth, and were placed into action. Compromise wasn’t a dirty word to these men. It was how greatness was achieved.

Can we say the same about today’s “me” generation?



My country has had growing pains, in its past.

There was a time in which States rights sought to supercede the Federal Government’s rights. The difference in opinion led to open, armed conflict, sometimes leading brother to fight brother.

When it was over, the nation had survived. It was a trial by fire, which caused the country to become stronger than it had been.

Can we say the same of today’s trials and tribulations?



My country has risen to fight tyranny in the past.

When Americans have seen that the need to fight tyranny is the only option, we have risen to the challenge. Whether it was removing the autocratic government of the Germans in the First World War, or it was to stop the Axis powers from dominating the world in the Second World War, Americans have always risen to the challenge.

Can it be said that Americans can rise to the challenges of today?



I can say 5 years ago, I saw these questions answered on September 11, 2001. On that day I saw brave men and women putting their lives on the line to do the right thing. On United Flight 93, Americans compromised and cooperated, to avert a larger, more terrible disaster than just the hijacking of an airplane. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, we saw, no matter how brief, the country come together and become stronger. And we saw Americans rise to the challenge of clearing the rubble of the World Trade Center, as well as going after those responsible for planning the attacks



I have in a few short paragraphs tried to outline the good in this country.

This country is not perfect. It has its flaws, and warts. It has had periods where its people have not lived up to the ideals of its founding fathers. It has had periods through which it stumbled, and caused much harm in doing so.



But is it better to place the blame of the country’s faults on its people, many of whom have an imperfect understanding of the concepts of which this country were founded. Or is it better to exalt the ideals upon which the country was founded, the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?



Perfection is a journey, always a work in progress. Do you fault the traveler for taking his steps? Or do you celebrate the journey?

I guess it's been a few weeks since the last piece of cheesy, patriotic-crap came filtering down to the forum again.
Well, let's begin...again.

'I live in a country that was founded on the ideal that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. '

- Well, just the white men, really.

'My country was born on July 4th, 1776 when a group of men decided that the injustice of being taxed, without the right of being represented was too much to bear from the Crown of England.'

- Well, no, not really. Taking a masterly H. Zimm approach, with a dash of Oxfordian scholarship, it was more a number of reasons. The main conflict which led to rebellion was not wanting to pay toward Imperial defence, despite more than two major world wars to defend the colonists. In light of this factor, centralization for more efficient military and security measures, as well as fiscal reform and a burden on the crown to defend stubborn, autonomous colonials, was resisted and resented. Competition with British and Empire protectionism and markets, as well as the British protection of native rights and boundaries - all cooked up to create a tense and explosive atmosphere. As Zimm et al would highlight, the rebellion was more about the landed and higher classes wanting taxes to filter in to their own pockets, not that of the British. It wasn't really so much about the constitutional or representative matters of government and state. Just like the Russian Revolution of 1917, it was more about control - and who should have it. After all, most people wanted to appoint Washington as King in place of George III.

'After winning independence from England, there came the formation of a government, unlike any which had been seen before on the face of the Earth, nor since.'

- Meh? There had been democracy and republicanism in history for thousands of years. The oldest democratic traditions were in growth around the Nordic entities of Man and Iceland, which are still preserved. Athens and her leagues were democratic to the bone, and Maritime republicanism was endemic around the Italian cities of the Renaissance, and much before. Democracy was not born with the United States.

'There was a time in which States rights sought to supercede the Federal Government’s rights. The difference in opinion led to open, armed conflict, sometimes leading brother to fight brother.
When it was over, the nation had survived. It was a trial by fire, which caused the country to become stronger than it had been. '

- You mean, the North had triumphed against a South that wanted to preserve its ideology and tradition? Gee whiz, seems a bit like 1776, doesn't it?

'When Americans have seen that the need to fight tyranny is the only option, we have risen to the challenge. Whether it was removing the autocratic government of the Germans in the First World War, or it was to stop the Axis powers from dominating the world in the Second World War, Americans have always risen to the challenge.'

- "America" didn't really remove the autocratic German government in 1918. German diplomatic offensives and unrestricted warfare forced America in to a situation it had been slowly sucked in to by a financial quagmire anyway. Remember, "we" (there's a we in there, honest) didn't enter Berlin. Germans toppled Germans. And remember that the Sleeping Giant would have remained asleep had not the Japanese Fox struck first. America didn't really fight Tyranny for the sake of Freedom, but for more realistically sober reasons.

'And we saw Americans rise to the challenge of clearing the rubble of the World Trade Center, as well as going after those responsible for planning the attacks'

- Right, what's Iraq got to do with the bombing of the World Trade Centre, again?

'Perfection is a journey, always a work in progress. Do you fault the traveler for taking his steps? Or do you celebrate the journey?'

- Biggest. Get. Out. Of. Jail. Free. Clause. Ever.

Back to the pub with yee Halo!!

Gimme a break about the white man clause. England is the biggest "White boy club" evah. Ask any of your so called "Paki's" about that eh?

Other than that, you weren't required to read it were you?

Fandros

Though Fandros, England never had a large non-caucasian indigenous population like the US and its fairly easy to argue that the minorities in the UK (despite how numerous they are) are treated a lot better than those here in the US.

Sixee should have posted that in quotes or given credit to the source.

"Some days it just doesn't pay to gnaw through the leather straps."

-Emo Phillips-

Insipid, factually incorrect and childish to boot.

In other words, enough of this patriotic, cheesy shit, pwease.

Halo is just championing the cause that is rampant anti-American sentiment all over Europe. The man is just doing his job, folks.


Honestly, I hope the next administration chooses that the United States is going to sit things out for a presidential term or two and lets the world, which obviously doesn't need our help, take care of its own problems for a change while maybe we take care of domestic issues. You want to wear the daddy pants? Go ahead. Be our guests. Globalization and the fact that most trade goods are manufactured in China and international corporations keep the world humming along reguardless of what goes on in Washington or in Brussels so go ahead and hate and we will just laugh because its really doesn't matter. Everyone has their finger in everyone else's pie these days. It doesn't make sense to wish to bury one nation unless you want to bury yourselves in the process, unless of course you want to brand an entire nation of 300 plus million ( beats me if thats accurate or not) as the scourge of the earth for the actions of a few politicians. If so, then by all means tell us to take our business elsewhere. You deserve the loss of revenue.

There will still be cold beer, hot showers, dogs with wagging tails and familes that matter most when the work day is over. Most people are thankful for the the opportunity to continue to enjoy that because it could be alot worse. For many that is being patriotic, which just boils down to being thankful. Is that so bad?

'Halo is just championing the cause that is rampant anti-American sentiment all over Europe. The man is just doing his job, folks.'

- I like to think of it as championing the cause of eradicating the disillusioned.

Call a spade a spade, it's rampant imperialism, and there should be nothing wrong with that. Just don't wrap it up in the fucking "freedom" bollocks and "fight against tyranny" shit and then bring up an example from the past of American Imperialism.

You're just like every other dominant power in history. I'm sorry, you're just no different. You have an imperial rise, you'll have an imperial fall. It's not a bad thing, it's just the way of it. I'm sorry it's nothing special. I really am.

Halo, how does that effect you? Did Americans fly over last night just to shit in your morning coffee? Honestly, I can say I am sorry that Tony Blair turned out to be a stooge of Bush and demonstrated that time and time again by more or less switching off his own brain in favor of allowing Bush's do the thinking. Perhaps a little more constructive criticism from "Across the Pond" may have at the very least given some folks pause on the whole Iraq issue and maybe presented a better solution Still, you guys elected that clown as we elected our own. You have 1 more year and we have 2.

Also, its funny to hear a Brit gripe about imperialism. Thats just rich. The only reason the USA even exists is because apparently your forefathers were not motivated to fight hard enough to keep the Colonies under control of the Crown and the Jolly Olde Britsh Empire. Would things be better if the USA folded and Europe ran the world? One of the prime reasons the USA has the economic cloat it has today is because our nation was lucky enough to be producing goods and placing infra-structure while not having it be bombed during Europe's last attempt at running the show. Europe created this monster you hate so much now. Personally I would rather have some Asian country rule the world. At least they typically don't use religion as an excuse to wage wars and exterminate people.

Besides the current situation of the world really could not be branded Imperialism. Globalization is almost better than the Atomic Bomb and Mutually Assured Destruction. Instead of pointing a bunch of nukes at innocent people, lets just do business in a manner where if you screw me, you screw yourself over as well too and we all can commit economic suicide together. Its sink or swim because the world is a heck of alot smaller now and for the most part, tends to now strive to work together for a mutual best interest. Whoever makes policy doesn't really matter to me at least, as long as the aforementioned cold beer and hot showers keep right on coming and I am left, for the most part, alone to live my life as a choose. Being in the military, thats not always easy LOL. Still, no one held a gun to my head and forced me to sign up.

WTG Halo, I knew you'd eventually show us that you fault the traveler.

So there was a Democratic Republic with 3 branches that had checks and balances against each other in history? Can you name the government, please? Remember, not a Democracy, as you have shown had existed before, but a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with 3 BRANCHES. Try to answer without puffing yourself up too much this time.

As for World War I, I'm sure the Germans would have just removed the Government without any prompting from "us". They sure seemed inclined to do it all on thier own...
And as for World War II, you are right, we needed the Japanese attack to galvanize the country, and make us realize we were next.

As for going after those responsible, I was talking about Afganastan. But you applied it to Iraq. Bravo, way to show your colors.


And for the record, Rover, that was an original essay. The only parts that were reused from any sources were from the Declaration of Independance.

'Also, its funny to hear a Brit gripe about imperialism.'

- Who's griping about imperialism? I think it's a "Jolly Olde" way to run the world. I just think you need to call a spade what it is - and stop dressing it up in that freedom bollocks. It isn't even globalism, or one better: capitalist intervention. It's imperialism, why can't you Yanks just accept it?

'The only reason the USA even exists is because apparently your forefathers were not motivated to fight hard enough to keep the Colonies under control of the Crown and the Jolly Olde Britsh Empire.''

- It's quite a debate among scholars as to whether the thirteen colonies would ever have been retrievable, but all I can say is that we certainly got our own back in 1814, eh, eh?

'Would things be better if the USA folded and Europe ran the world?'

- I wonder. I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm averse to US imperialism, I just hate the corny bollocks you guys coat it all in.

One of the prime reasons the USA has the economic cloat it has today is because our nation was lucky enough to be producing goods and placing infra-structure while not having it be bombed during Europe's last attempt at running the show.'

- Lucky enough? The US rise to economic greatness had nothing to do with luck, me old chum. You spent a good 75 years under the cloak of the Royal Navy, one of the prime factors (or benefactors, you could say) of US growth during the nineteenth century.

'Personally I would rather have some Asian country rule the world. At least they typically don't use religion as an excuse to wage wars and exterminate people.'

- Right. Uhm... Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, am I missing any?
Mate, it's Pax Americana, and it's one of the most dominant imperialisms history has seen. Just stop fucking denying it, and go with it.

Hey that was fun. Again, again!

And for the record, Rover, that was an original essay. The only parts that were reused from any sources were from the Declaration of Independance.

So you are saying you wrote that? I have my reason for asking...guess why..

I'd have to agree with Rover. I think the world in general would take our heavy helping hand quite happily if we stopped acting as though we were mainly interested in protecting ourselves instead of just being apparently friendly for their bennie.

Fandros

Yes Rover, I wrote it.
I know, as hard as it is to believe it, I actually had an original thought.
Try Googling it, and see what you come up with.

I'll find it...I think I read it in one of those "forwarded to a million people" emails. I read it about 3 or 4 days before you posted it, I'm most certain. It was VERY close to what you posted with some very minor differences.

Reps to those who can find it!

Well, if it is, there must be a "group mind" thing going on.
Regardless, believe what you will. I wrote it from scratch.

Rofl, you lying prick.

You're a complete tragedy, can't even fuck up on your own.

I'm a little surprised you guys don't believe Sixee. Reread the "essay" again, it's not exactly Edmund Burke.

And if he did write it I am sure Halo will be the first to apologize for his behavior.

Rev

'And if he did write it I am sure Halo will be the first to apologize for his behavior.'

- Lol?

If Sixee wants to PM me his real first and last name, I'll run it through turnitin.com, a neat little plagarism checker. Checks against thousands of public and private databases, I use it all the time to catch students cheating.

I almost did it under a false name, then realized I might be screwing Sixee over if he uses the essay somewhere else.

He's oddly quiet.

If you suspect it's not his essay, you're the ones that need to provide proof.

As Grift3r said, it's no Edmund Burke.

I just don't understand how it has become so important to some.

This is Sixee, after all.

Original or plagiarized...../shrug.

I am sure all have better uses for their time.

Slow political news, this is all we have to debate all of a sudden.

I'm just offering to help settle the debate, and honestly couldn't care less who's essay it is.

Yes Rover, I wrote it.
I know, as hard as it is to believe it, I actually had an original thought.
Try Googling it, and see what you come up with.

Where was the original thought?

I IM'd Kanyli my real first and last name. Please feel free to check and find out if I plagarized it.
I find it amusing that so many have taken an interest in my essay.
Halo still hasn't shown me where there was a Democratic Republic in history with 3 seperate branches of government.
And Bylimet, you profess to not care, yet you took the time to post. Hilarious.
Discw, the original thought was the essay, combined with posting it here. Since you are way out in Left field, it's easy to understand why this was lost on you.

I IM'd Kanyli my real first and last name. Please feel free to check and find out if I plagarized it.
I find it amusing that so many have taken an interest in my essay.
Halo still hasn't shown me where there was a Democratic Republic in history with 3 seperate branches of government.
And Bylimet, you profess to not care, yet you took the time to post. Hilarious.
Discw, the original thought was the essay, combined with posting it here. Since you are way out in Left field, it's easy to understand why this was lost on you.

Ours was definitely not the first to have a 3 branch government.



http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/rome/p/blromerepgovt.htm?terms=rome+three%20branches%20of %20government

From the Founding of Rome in 753 to 509 B.C. Rome was a monarchy, ruled by kings. In 509 B.C., the Romans expelled the Etruscan kings and established the Republic. Having witnessed the problems of monarchy on their own land, and aristocracy and democracy among the Greeks, they opted for a mixed form of government, with three branches.


CONSULS - Monarchical Branch of Roman Government:
Two magistrates or consuls with supreme civil and military authority. They held office for one year, then became senators for life. Each consul could veto the other, they led the army, served as judges, and had religious duties.


SENATE - Aristocratic Branch of Roman Government:
Senate (senatus = council of elders) was an advisory branch, initially composed of about 300 citizens who served for life. The ranks of the Senate were drawn from ex-consuls and other officers who served for life.


ASSEMBLY - Democratic Branch of Roman Government:
The Assembly of Centuries (comitia centuriata), which was composed of all members of the army, elected consuls annually. The Assembly of Tribes (comitia tributa), which contained all citizens, approved or rejected laws and decided issues of war and peace.

Ours was definitely not the first to have a 3 branch government.



Was Rome a Democratic Republic?
My point was the United States Was the first to be a Democratic Republic with 3 branches.
I know the founding fathers used Rome as a basis for many parts of our government.
In Rome you had the aristorcracy and the military running the show, for the most part.
Although you could argue the comitia tributa was a portion of the government where the people had a say, it certainly wasn't as broad reaching as the freedoms laid out by the Constitution.

Good post Fild.
:D

'Halo still hasn't shown me where there was a Democratic Republic in history with 3 seperate branches of government.'

- Well, until you reply to a single other point of my original post, this hardly seems to merit a reply.
Your original post, however, said nothing of a Democratic Republic, simply that the US had formed a government unlike any the world had ever known!!!!! In typical American dramatics. It's simply untrue. Democracy, Republicanism, and the mix of the two has hardly been absent in the annals of history. American government is not really "unlike anything!!!1111!!!!" ever seen before.

But if you really want to pick and poke over the very wording of your non-existent original post, Venice, especially after the earlier part of the 13th century, kept its democracy in check with at least 3 different arms of government and council. The original council almost broke the Doge's oligarchic grip on the state, and the great sctutinizing democratic bodies made sure that corruption and power were kept fully in check.

The democratic traditions of the Nordic North-West easily out-live American constitutionalism. Sorry mate, it's simply not true to state that there's never been anything like US democracy on the face of the earth before.
Now you may wish to reply to at least a part of my original post.

Good doggy.

I did respond, but you were probably too drunk to see the post.
I'll repost it here, so you won't get lost along the way.


WTG Halo, I knew you'd eventually show us that you fault the traveler.

So there was a Democratic Republic with 3 branches that had checks and balances against each other in history? Can you name the government, please? Remember, not a Democracy, as you have shown had existed before, but a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with 3 BRANCHES. Try to answer without puffing yourself up too much this time.

As for World War I, I'm sure the Germans would have just removed the Government without any prompting from "us". They sure seemed inclined to do it all on thier own...
And as for World War II, you are right, we needed the Japanese attack to galvanize the country, and make us realize we were next.

As for going after those responsible, I was talking about Afganastan. But you applied it to Iraq. Bravo, way to show your colors.

The rest of what you wrote is such insipid drivel, it barely deserves to be read, let alone responded to.
However in the interest of fair play, I'll humor you.


- Well, just the white men, really.
You must have missed the part later on where I said that the country has stumbled in the past, sometimes with disasterous results. It's ok, 8 pints in a day will wreak havoc on your reading comprehension, eventually.



- Well, no, not really. Taking a masterly H. Zimm approach, with a dash of Oxfordian scholarship, it was more a number of reasons. The main conflict which led to rebellion was not wanting to pay toward Imperial defence, despite more than two major world wars to defend the colonists. In light of this factor, centralization for more efficient military and security measures, as well as fiscal reform and a burden on the crown to defend stubborn, autonomous colonials, was resisted and resented. Competition with British and Empire protectionism and markets, as well as the British protection of native rights and boundaries - all cooked up to create a tense and explosive atmosphere. As Zimm et al would highlight, the rebellion was more about the landed and higher classes wanting taxes to filter in to their own pockets, not that of the British. It wasn't really so much about the constitutional or representative matters of government and state. Just like the Russian Revolution of 1917, it was more about control - and who should have it. After all, most people wanted to appoint Washington as King in place of George III.
And you think being taxed without being represented didn't play into this at all? Of course they wanted the taxes to go to themselves. They didn't want the Crown in that game anymore. They had to finance it somehow. Don't you think having a little say in what was going on around them might have aleviated the situation a tad?



- Meh? There had been democracy and republicanism in history for thousands of years. The oldest democratic traditions were in growth around the Nordic entities of Man and Iceland, which are still preserved. Athens and her leagues were democratic to the bone, and Maritime republicanism was endemic around the Italian cities of the Renaissance, and much before. Democracy was not born with the United States.

Although I did not come out and call the United States a Democratic Republic, someone with a "Oxfordian Scholarship" should have realized that's what the United States is. Next time I'll lead you around by the nose so you won't get lost.


- You mean, the North had triumphed against a South that wanted to preserve its ideology and tradition? Gee whiz, seems a bit like 1776, doesn't it?

Yeah, sometimes it's out with the old, and in with the new.



- "America" didn't really remove the autocratic German government in 1918. German diplomatic offensives and unrestricted warfare forced America in to a situation it had been slowly sucked in to by a financial quagmire anyway. Remember, "we" (there's a we in there, honest) didn't enter Berlin. Germans toppled Germans. And remember that the Sleeping Giant would have remained asleep had not the Japanese Fox struck first. America didn't really fight Tyranny for the sake of Freedom, but for more realistically sober reasons.


- Right, what's Iraq got to do with the bombing of the World Trade Centre, again?
I addressed these points before, as I determined they were the only viable parts of your post that were somewhat coherant. Please see above.



- Biggest. Get. Out. Of. Jail. Free. Clause. Ever.

Only. In. Your. Mind.
I mean we all know England was sprung from the earth, Perfect in form and function, and never having to deal with the pesky uprisings of Scots, Irish, Maharajas, Rajas, Thakurs and Nawabs. Everyone was 1 big happy family under British rule.
That Gahandi guy was just off his gourd.
You fault the traveler for taking the steps along the journey. This explains who you are, not the traveler.

Hrm, either the website is being wonky, or the school didn't pay their bill. Turnitin.com generates a very cool report of each paper submitted, with color coding from Blue (All original) to Red (All Plagarized). For some reason it doesn't want to create a report right now, I'll check it tomorrow. Too bad, because it's fun to use, and I like having new papers to play with.

I'm such an English teacher nerd. :(

Back to your regular political flaming.

OMG, Sixee sabotaged Turnitin.com!!!

YEah mah 1337 hAX0r sKI11z r fTW....

Discw, the original thought was the essay, combined with posting it here.

The essay didn't have a single thing that hadn't been said endless times before.

'Yeah, sometimes it's out with the old, and in with the new.'


- That's...your explanation?
Intellectual argument just hit it up a notch. Bang!

When you're proved wrong in your contradiction you revert to the "well we were growing, and did things disasterously!!!" argument, and when you've used that too much, you just agree with me "well in with the new, rightz0r?!?!1"

'I mean we all know England was sprung from the earth, Perfect in form and function, and never having to deal with the pesky uprisings of Scots, Irish, Maharajas, Rajas, Thakurs and Nawabs. Everyone was 1 big happy family under British rule.'

- Yes but I'm not the one posting essays on how wonderful my country is, and then having half the board tear it apart.

Grow up, boy.

Sorry kids, 5% plagarized. That about accounts for random chance. And Sixee, at least if anyone ever tries to steal your essay, it's listed as yours now.

Plagarized content: "Founded on the ideal that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Not many other ways to say that.

Such a neat website, such disappointing results. It's more fun to, as one of my students did last semester, rip something word for word off CNN. I think I'll assign an essay this week and make the students run them through the website.

That is based on what is in their database.

I read something so similiar to this essay I had dejavu when I first read it. Unfortunately I delete the crap emails I get and it is unretrievable...but I stand by what I said...this is most definately a piece that has been written before.

..this is most definately a piece that has been written before.

While at times Sixee has said things that have had me inclined to pat him on the back, for the most part his contributions have been reminiscent of a 'piece that has been done before'.

Sixee has been done before.

In every troll we've had on this board for 5yrs. They come, they annoy, they post 2000 times in half a year, but they eventually go.

It's fun.

In every troll we've had on this board for 5yrs. They come, they annoy, they post 2000 times in half a year, but they eventually go.


Call me a troll if you want. It doesn't bother me in the least. You however are still a pickled Limey.

Intellectual argument just hit it up a notch. Bang!

When you're proved wrong in your contradiction you revert to the "well we were growing, and did things disasterously!!!" argument, and when you've used that too much, you just agree with me "well in with the new, rightz0r?!?!1"

LOL, I find it very interesting that you harp on 1 thing I "let go", yet you have nothing else to say on anything else I replied to. Probably because you don't have a leg to stand on anywhere else.
Yes but I'm not the one posting essays on how wonderful my country is, and then having half the board tear it apart.

Grow up, boy
If you and Rover consist of "Half the board", you have a greaty inflated vision of yourselves.

I read something so similiar to this essay I had dejavu when I first read it. Unfortunately I delete the crap emails I get and it is unretrievable...but I stand by what I said...this is most definately a piece that has been written before.
So when faced with facts, you use the nebulous sense of "Deja Vu" to justify what you posted.

Pathetic.

At least when I'm wrong, I'll admit it; Condie's tooth gap for instance.
Maybe it's you 2 that need to "Grow up, boy"

So because you remember reading it somewhere before, but can't provide proof Sixee is guilty, not exactly the way it works. His essay so far proves to be original and so far you have no defense but to say "Hey I was wrong"

Rev

The burden of proof is on him who alleges.

Sorry to side track, but turnitin.com seems pretty cool. Is there anyway to just upload original papers into their database without having a license to scan papers?

You mean, in order to protect your work? No clue. I'm still trying to hammer out how to allow students to upload papers themselves - right now I just type in any questionable paragraphs. They index web pages, so if you post it somewhere (blogish) I would assume it eventually gets picked up.

Frankly, I think I could do an excellent business at school writing and selling papers myself, and save students the hassel. 100% original, errors tailored to your grade level. Probably retire in a few years if I didn't get arrested and fired.

Then again, I've also considered dealing drugs out the back door of my classroom. Perfect clientele, and I could probably find some good suppliers too. :D

Back to your regular flaming...

So because you remember reading it somewhere before, but can't provide proof Sixee is guilty, not exactly the way it works. His essay so far proves to be original and so far you have no defense but to say "Hey I was wrong"

Rev

Are you fucking nuts?

Yeah, no way Rover could be wrong.
His perceptions are reality.
It's the rest of us that are crazy for not seeing things his way.

'LOL, I find it very interesting that you harp on 1 thing I "let go", yet you have nothing else to say on anything else I replied to. Probably because you don't have a leg to stand on anywhere else.'


- Uhm, I pretty much replied to every single thing your post said.
Where-as you're not ready to admit or argue a single thing in response.

Arguing on these boards really shows your limited intellectual ability to talk about, well, just about anything.

You really do need to grow up, boy.

So now you are reduced to arguing about arguing.....

How many pints are you in now?

And what do you call your above post?

Also, can you actually be in a pint?

I call my above post, trying to point out to you the futility of your "arguments".
I refuted each and every one of your statements made earlier.
You have yet to make a coherant reply to them, and have since gone on a tangent about how I have refuted them, and not about the issues that were drawn up.

You are now better at derailing threads (102)!

And you can be in a pint, if you have had more than 1...

'I refuted each and every one of your statements made earlier.'


- Have you?
You've been proven wrong about your "democracy", agreed in the error of your statement about the civil war, tried a "get-out-of-jail-free card" when confronted with the whole all men are equal, except the African-American man, completely ignored the political-economic and actual, reality sobering reasons for entering both world wars, coming up with some sarcastic nonesense when asked to defend your original post about the German government of 1919, ignored most reasons for the American rebellion and, well, agreed about the taxes, and pretty much went off on one about the British Empire, when no one had mentioned anything about it.

Come on...do better.

You said the Revolution was about taxes and control, just as I said.
Being taxed without being represented was the key issue raised. You said the Richer Colonists wanted the taxes in their pockets, as opposed to the Crown, and wanted a local guy to tell them what to do.
Sounds like an argument against being taxed without being represented to me. Its just that Washington had a particular dislike with monarchs, so the idea about the 3 branches and the representatives came about.

Where was I proven wrong about a Democratic Republic that had 3 branches of government?
You have yet to show me where one existed.
Fild at least gave it an attempt by using Rome as an example. Remember, The United States is a Representational Democratic Republic with 3 branches, not a Democracy. Mob rule, is Democracy.


You are right, this country hasn't been kind to people of dark skin. Enough people got together, and fixed that particular issue. You want to keep harping "But that's not what the country was founded on, boo hoo." You are right, it was fixed, however. Now people are not judged by the color of their skin, as far as rights and legal matters are concerned in this country anymore.

Do you really think the the United States would not have entered either war if the people didn't think it was fair and just to do so? You think if the government would have told the people, "Hey we need to make a buck, so we are gonna go to war." the people would have marched willingly into oblivion? Do you also thing the Germans were inclined to change the regime without the Americans knocking on the door? Yes the British, French, Russians, Canadiens, and Italians were there, but come on, you really weren't making very good progress against them until the Americans arrived.

The reason the British Empire was mentioned, is because you seem to think that for some reason, the United States is some horrible, evil entity, bent on domination of the world, while England is the epitome of class and refinement.
Our countries have made the same types of decisions in the past. Hopefully it'll take us less time than the British to learn from our mistakes....

'You said the Revolution was about taxes and control, just as I said.'

- No skippy, I said it was about not wanting to contribute to imperial defence, fiscal reform, native rights, Empire protectionism, centralization, and about taxes. But not, as you said, about freedom, tyranny and representation - maybe to some fanciful, ideological fairies of the time.

'Being taxed without being represented was the key issue raised. You said the Richer Colonists wanted the taxes in their pockets, as opposed to the Crown, and wanted a local guy to tell them what to do.'

- Again, no. Wanting to be represented, and wanting taxes to go in to your own pocket, are two, very seperate political issues. The landed class just wanted to replace government officials, it wasn't really about inclusion and representation in the Imperial parliament.
Stop making up rubbish replies to false statements, you bloody twat.

'Sounds like an argument against being taxed without being represented to me.'

- Well it would do 'cause you're a fucking retard.

'Its just that Washington had a particular dislike with monarchs, so the idea about the 3 branches and the representatives came about.'

- Well, Washington was the only one. Most wanted to make him King.
Just so you know, you romantic turd, Washington didn't pull Democracy and Republicanism out of his arse. Party politics was the invention of the British, Democracy an ancient Greek idea, and Republicanism was born in the Forum and about the shores of Renaissance, Maritime Italy. An elected leader, or Doge (Duc), kept in check by the Quarantia, creating two seperate councils of sapientes. All of which, from the Middle Imperial Period, was observed and combined by the Senatre, and later the rising power of the Great Council. If you want democracy and republicanism in 3 branches, look to Venice, not the US. (Got a copy of Norwich's "Venice" in front of me - highly recommended).
But that's not even the point. The point is that you originally wanted to brag that the US had a completely unique and original government, never before seen on the "face of the earth". It's just bullshit - sorry mate. If you're hard pressed to find the exact model of Democratic Republicanism, you'll find it in some form throughout history within the last 2,500 years. I'm sorry, the citizens of the US aren't the first people of this race to experience such traditions of government.

'You are right, this country hasn't been kind to people of dark skin. Enough people got together, and fixed that particular issue. You want to keep harping "But that's not what the country was founded on, boo hoo." You are right, it was fixed, however. Now people are not judged by the color of their skin, as far as rights and legal matters are concerned in this country anymore.'

- Stop flying past the point. You said, after your "unique government" speech, that all men were created equal through your independence. I don't care if it took you 200 years to finally treat your African-"American" population with something akin to decency, the point is, you said that all men were equal. They weren't.

'Do you really think the the United States would not have entered either war if the people didn't think it was fair and just to do so?'

- Are you seriously telling me that, without the advent of unrestricted warfare and diplomatic offensives in Latin America, that the American people would have lobbed a million soldiers in to Europe in the closing stages of war? If so, then you're in the minority, because most scholars don't seem to believe so. Britain financed the allies on the American money markets, and spent any capital raised buying large amounts of American arms and manufacture. Don't be ashamed that the Great War was good for America, 'cause the Napoleonic War was great for us. We had unrestricted trade with the world, whilst our goods were smuggled in at highly inflated prices as contraband on the continent. War is good for growing and aloof economies - don't feel bad. The US - and again, don't feel too bad, the British enjoyed Splended Isolation for 90yrs - would not have entered either World Wars had it not been provoked, which it was - both times. It was never, as you said, your birth-right to defy tyranny and topple "the Hun".

'Yes the British, French, Russians, Canadiens, and Italians were there, but come on, you really weren't making very good progress against them until the Americans arrived.'

- Oh, weren't we? 'Cause by the time the Americans had arrived the Ottoman Empire had been over-run by the British, as had all German colonies, the country was being starved in to submission, and beaten back at Jutland, its last great Western offensive had been blunted along the trenches, and diaries, journals and socio-economic factors had already spelled Germany's doom on the arrival of US troops, calling "Lafayete, we are here." As with the second world war, American intervention ensured victory, but, as with the second world war, it was not the victorious factor. Particularly during the Great War, it was only one of many. Germany's defeat during its last great Western Offensive had sealed the country's fate, as its population was starving and its manpower and economy exhausted.
So no, skippy, I don't think the German's thought "Fuck, the Yanks, let's change in to a Republic!!!" especially as they invited you there in the first place.

'The reason the British Empire was mentioned, is because you seem to think that for some reason, the United States is some horrible, evil entity, bent on domination of the world,'

- Which just goes to show how defensive you can be, you little sensitive muffin.
No, I don't think the US is some evil, horrible entity. I think it's a top notch Great Power, and one of the better civilizing power's for good, of the last 4,000yrs. But what I hate, what I can't fucking stand, are the mobs of friggin disillusioned twats that think the US stands for something else than the sobering reality of its Pax Americana. You have your interests, your needs, and the state is bent toward them. You don't fight tyranny and defend freedom 'cause it's "the right thing to do". I'm sorry - the US is no more special than any other dominating Great Power. It has an economic rise, a muscle flexing Pax, and a slow economic decline amongst other rising super-powers. What its day in the sun been like? Pretty great and dominating compared to most others. But it isn't, fundamentally, any different. You're not a "chosen" people. And you ain't no fucking moses.

'while England is the epitome of class and refinement.'

- If you could quote me, then I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, stop making up false statements to pull me on. It's quite sad.

'Our countries have made the same types of decisions in the past. Hopefully it'll take us less time than the British to learn from our mistakes....'

- Well, you've had 220yrs. Whilst Britain has only been in existence for 299. So you've got another 79 to become perfect. Get going!!

You mean, in order to protect your work? No clue. I'm still trying to hammer out how to allow students to upload papers themselves - right now I just type in any questionable paragraphs. They index web pages, so if you post it somewhere (blogish) I would assume it eventually gets picked up.

Yep, I was getting at a way to protect my work. Thanks for the info.

Well Ronnie thought we were different too.


Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are fee. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.


The above is from Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the nation after his eight years as president, delivered in the Oval Office on January 11, 1989. http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406052132.asp

This is interesting to me not b/c of this dumb pissing contest between Sixee and Halo but b/c my nieghborhood is fighting the county comissioners and a developer who wish to plant a 45ft tall building full of 800+ self storage units right up against our development. I was at a neighborhood meeting last night and someone read that above part of Ronnie's speech and it struck a cord with me. More often than not we are moving away from those ideas of "we the people" and we ARE letting the government drive us around including changing zoning laws for big corporations to allow dumb buildings that do not even flow with the landscape into a township. Something happened to me last night, I got motivated I guess you could say and I feel the urge to be more involved and stop letting the government snowball me. And the awesome thing was that everyone around me last night felt the same way, that apathy that has been so prevelant in recent years was non-existant.

/derail off, sorry was fresh on my mind and was somewhat related to this discussion. I never was a fan of Reagan because my family were staunch democrats and republicans were evil. However, as I aged and have been allowed to form my own opinions rather than just accept them I think that man did allot of good. Today was the first time I've ever read his farewell speech and it touched me.

Halo made some decent points, I dont agree with all of them, but a pretty good articulation of a divergent view that most people in the US never consider, and they probably should.

Some points that I take issue.
1. The Revolutionary War occured not because of taxes, or landed aristocracy, or indian rights.. The bottom line is it occured because England needed us more than we needed England. Colonalism was a one way street and these colonies were a major money maker for the British Empire. What were getting in exchange? Protection? Yay?
The colonies were expanding in size and power at a rapid rate, very quickly becoming the equal in many respects to the home country. More people, more land, more resources. In the space of 2 generations The United States will become a world class power. Our independence was an inevitability.

About the creation of our form of government.
Halo, you are not in complete honesty in the assement that you put forward, nor is anyone correct who believes that our government just popped out of the genius of our founding fathers. It was indeed 2,500 years in the evolution. It took as much from the chaotic pure democracy of the Athenians as it did from the carefully segregated power of the Spartans. It took from Rome as it took from the Magna Carta. It relied on Martin Luther as heavily as it relied on John Locke. These forces and ideals coalesced in the crucible of the Enlightenment in the salons of Europe. It expressed itself in our government built on powerful and universal ideals.
If you believe it was all homegrown or sprung up uniquely in America, then you probably believe in creationism. But it is, so far, the final stage of the evolution of the greatest political idea that man has ever put forth.

On WW1:
Cmon Halo, it was far from wrapped up when the US entered. And if we hadnt its just as likely that Germany would have won. The British had pretty much been bled dry in the Somme as Kitchners Army and the will of the British people were melting away. The French Army was on the verge of mutiny and a western Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was seemingly possible. The Allied army lived in shallow ditches whereas the German army was in very well fortified bunkers.
But you are correct in saying a major reason we entered WW1 was to ensure that our debtors wouldnt default on their loans as our banks had pretty much bankrolled the Allied war.


On Pax Americana:
In one sense you are right Halo. We are a Hegemon for limited time. But the decline is a product of our success. We are an uncomfortable hegemon, despite what the current crop of Neo Cons wishes... America doesnt want to rule the world.. Americans want to make money. Americans want free trade and open markets. We do not seek colonies or imperial gains, we seek trading partners. We want more Chinas and Indias. We want to fade into the background, quietly living our lives, providing for our family and buying nice stuff.
New TV > Storming Beaches.

'What were getting in exchange? Protection? Yay?'

- Yay? I don't think Imperial defence was anything to sniff at. At least, I don't think the colonists themselves felt that way. In 1745, New England colonists jumped a bit too enthusiastically at the chance to send reinforcements to the siege of Louisbourg. When Duquesne established his string of fortifications along New France to hem the colonies in, Pennsylvania was thrown in to panic and dissaray. The stubborn Quakers had for years refused to do shit to contribute to their own defence - and were now shitting bricks and turning to the British Man for help. And I'm not sure a little Virginian landowner named George Washington thought defence was something to laugh about, when he commanded a militia detatchment to try and budge the French from Ohio, and was consequently driven from Fort Necessity.
I think, if you over-estimate the imperial might of Britain to defend the colonists, successfully for 200yrs, against the world's most aggressive powers, then you under-estimate the conference of Albany in 1755, when the colonies appealed to Newcastle's government for help, which launched the Seven Years War - when we truly "won" America.
In light of this, I'm not sure that I could agree with snearing at imperial defence. The colonists of the 18th century certainly didn't.

'The colonies were expanding in size and power at a rapid rate, very quickly becoming the equal in many respects to the home country. More people, more land, more resources.'

- Well, calm down, don't get beyond yourself. The US colonies were prosperous, sure, but it took until the mid to late nineteenth century before the US became anything remotely like equal to the Home Country. Remember that your economy almost single handedly depended on the British market up until the 1800, importing 7.89m worth of British goods, whilst only exporting 2.36m to Britain. It wouldn't be until the 1850's that Britain was finally importing equal amounts from the US that it was exporting, 22.3 and 29.8m respectively.
And, if you want to go for braun, look at the US' performance during the War of 1812. The US couldn't even overwhelm Canadian militia, whilst watching its Eastern Seaboard burn, exports plummet, and bankruptcy linger. Madison himself was almost captured.

But I do agree in your diagnosis that independence was ultimately inevitable. Otherwise, Britain would have become an offshore Liechtenstein. Still, the War of American Independence had causes, even if they were only the flame to the match.

'Cmon Halo, it was far from wrapped up when the US entered. And if we hadnt its just as likely that Germany would have won. The British had pretty much been bled dry in the Somme as Kitchners Army and the will of the British people were melting away. The French Army was on the verge of mutiny and a western Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was seemingly possible. The Allied army lived in shallow ditches whereas the German army was in very well fortified bunkers.'

- Sorry, it just doesn't compute mate.
By 1917 Germany was suffering more than any other of the Great combatants on the Western Front. Royal Navy blockade was biting beyond limits. Consumption of major foods, such as fish and eggs, were halved, as was sugar, and others such as potatoes, butter and vegetables declined tremendously. Food had become so scarce and short that the winter of 1916/17 had become known as the "Turnip Winter". German starvation and blockade had a knock-on-effect to the other Central Powers, where the largest city of the Habsburg Empire, Vienna, had seen wages halved twice by 1917, being too inaqequate to buy two loaves of bread. Female mortality rates had risen to 30.4% in both countries, the main cause being diseases springing from malnutrition. It is no coincidence that the new Emperor, Karl I, secretly sued for peace upon his accession.
On the otherside of the trenches, however, it wasn't too bad, for a war. French troops were fed well on home-grown produce, and Britain maintained peacetime levels of food imports, well in to 1917.

Sure, French mutinies of 1917 and British stalemate in Ypres and along the Somme shook the allies, but recovery was swift. The French army, though not on the offensive again until mid-1918, was more resolute and loyal than ever in its defense of the home-land, and German casualties equalled, and often over-took British ones during the great Flanders offensives.
The last great offensives of 1918 may have shown signs of great exhaustion for the Entente, but it was obliterating for Germany. Ludendorff may have had 192 divisions against 178 allied, but it was struggling to occupy the Brest-Litovsk territories, support the Austro-Hungarians, and fight on the Western Front. And most revealing of all - those accounted for the very last men that Germany could put in the field. Although reducing infantry divisions from twelve to nine battalions, the allies still possessed overwhelming material stocks, and much healthier economies. A thousand more aircraft, 800 more tanks, and 4000 more guns. Troop supply, transport and provision was far superior. Infact, Entente trenches and rear depots were so well stocked that when Germans advanced in the spring of 1918, they were a contributing factor to their failure to press the vital attack forward, stopping to plunder and gorge on chocolate, liquor and meat, before they were beaten back.

American troops and aid contributed to winning the war in 1918, but it was merely one, of several factors, that ensured the Germans blunted themselves in to retreat during the summer.

The fact is that the Germans had sealed their fate by aiming wide for Paris in the opening round of the War, and fucking up the Schlieffen plan beyond hope.


Always great to debate with you LL. Someone with a bit of fucking knowledge that didn't spew from the common, ignorant consensus of Le Mob.

A rewrite, so that Halo will be happy with my Essay:

I live in America.

I live in a country that was founded on the ideal that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are black.



My country was born on July 4th, 1776 when a group of men decided that not wanting to pay toward Imperial defence, despite more than two major world wars to defend the colonists was worth a rebellion. In light of this factor, centralization for more efficient military and security measures, as well as fiscal reform and a burden on the crown to defend stubborn, autonomous colonials, was resisted and resented. Competition with British and Empire protectionism and markets, as well as the British protection of native rights and boundaries - all cooked up to create a tense and explosive atmosphere. The rebellion was more about the landed and higher classes wanting taxes to filter in to their own pockets, not that of the British. It wasn't really so much about the constitutional or representative matters of government and state. Just like the Russian Revolution of 1917, it was more about control - and who should have it.

These men sent a letter to the Crown, listing the grievances they had. The Declaration of Independence is considered one of the greatest documents ever put to paper.

These men also had the courage, not to make this an anonymous open letter to the Crown, but to sign it.

Each of these men was branded as a traitor by the Crown. Each of them was stripped of their property, and bounties were on them. They lost contact with their families. Do we have any men that live among us today that might do the same?



After winning independence from England, there came the formation of a government, which borrowed from the oldest democratic traditions in growth around the Nordic entities of Man and Iceland, which are still preserved. Athens and her leagues were democratic to the bone, and Maritime republicanism was endemic around the Italian cities of the Renaissance, and much before. Democracy was not born with the United States.
It consisted of three Branches, each holding a check and a balance over the other two.

It took compromise to reach the final result. Not everyone was pleased. But the best suggestions came forth, and were placed into action. Compromise wasn’t a dirty word to these men. It was how greatness was achieved.

Can we say the same about today’s “me” generation?



My country has had growing pains, in its past.

There was a time in which States rights sought to supercede the Federal Government’s rights. The difference in opinion led to open, armed conflict, sometimes leading brother to fight brother. But this was just a repeat of the previous conflict that had taken place in 1776.

When it was over, the nation had survived. It was a trial by fire, which caused the country to become stronger than it had been.

Can we say the same of today’s trials and tribulations?



My country has risen to fight tyranny in the past.

When Americans have seen that the need to fight tyranny is the only option, we have risen to the challenge. Whether it was removing the autocratic government of the Germans in the First World War (German diplomatic offensives and unrestricted warfare forced America in to a situation it had been slowly sucked in to by a financial quagmire anyway. Remember, "we" (there's a we in there, honest) didn't enter Berlin. Germans toppled Germans.) or it was to stop the Axis powers from dominating the world in the Second World War, (And remember that the Sleeping Giant would have remained asleep had not the Japanese Fox struck first. America didn't really fight Tyranny for the sake of Freedom, but for more realistically sober reasons) Americans have always risen to the challenge.

Can it be said that Americans can rise to the challenges of today?



I can say 5 years ago, I saw these questions answered on September 11, 2001. On that day I saw brave men and women putting their lives on the line to do the right thing. On United Flight 93, Americans compromised and cooperated, to avert a larger, more terrible disaster than just the hijacking of an airplane. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, we saw, no matter how brief, the country come together and become stronger. And we saw Americans rise to the challenge of clearing the rubble of the World Trade Center, as well as going after those responsible for planning the attacks. What's Iraq got to do with the bombing of the World Trade Centre?



I have in a few short paragraphs tried to outline the good in this country.

This country is not perfect. It has its flaws, and warts. It has had periods where its people have not lived up to the ideals of its founding fathers. It has had periods through which it stumbled, and caused much harm in doing so.



But is it better to place the blame of the country’s faults on its people, many of whom have an imperfect understanding of the concepts of which this country were founded. Or is it better to exalt the ideals upon which the country was founded, the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?



Perfection is a journey, always a work in progress. Do you fault the traveler for taking his steps? Or do you celebrate the journey?
And trying to achieve anything great is the Biggest. Get. Out. Of. Jail. Free. Clause. Ever.

Still a piece of shit.

But remotely better than that last drivel.

E+

Then it was shit that was spewed from your mouth.

:P

You'd probably be happier if I just would have put:

"I live in America, and it sucks."
And BTW:

"No taxation without representation" was a rallying cry of the American Revolutionary War. During the years prior to and during the Revolution, advocates of American independence decried the fact that the American colonies were required to pay taxes to London, yet they had no representatives in Parliament. The Americans protested loss of a historic right of all Englishmen, that only their elected representatives could levy a tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation

But we know Wikipedia always lies....

I suppose you think Operation Freedom was something to do with Freedom, too?

Well, it had "Freedom" in the name of the operation....
Isn't that 'something' to do with Freedom?

You'd think.

Well, then that's something if it made YOU think....

Yet made puzzling by the absence of "me", and with the inclusion of "you".

Perhaps because I don't feel the need to question everything to the umpteenth degree.
Maybe your alcohol consumption is contributing to your paranoia.

He says, for the 'umpteenth' time.

Well, maybe it'll dawn on you that your "opinions" are the result of drinking too many pints at the local pub, and regurgitating whatever views your professors tried to implant into your sodden brain.
I know it's like trying to have a conversation with a verticle masonry structure, but I'm up for the challange....

Quite an interesting read. Halo's original reply, that is.